Question: Discuss the importance of constitutional conventions in the working of the United Kingdom constitution, giving specific examples

in support of what you say. Answer: (14.5/25 marks,marked by BAC lecturer) Constitutional conventions is a non legal sources of unwritten constitution. According to Sir Ivor Jennings, constitutional conventions had defined as "Constitutional conventions provide the flesh which clothes the dry bones of the law; they make the legal constitution work; they keep in touch with the growth of the ideas." In my understandings, "flesh" means conventions, "dry bones" means legal rules. In this statement, what Sir Ivor Jennings had said was if legal rules without conventions, legal rules cannot works well because it show that the importance of conventions brings significance impact on legal rules such as royal prerogatives, separation of powers, collective ministerial responsibility, Parliamentary Sovereignty and House of Lords. Why do we need conventions? In summary, conventions is a non-legal rules which impose an obligation on those bound by the conventions, breach or violation of which will give rise to legitimate criticism which is "unconstitutional conduct". According to O' Hood Philips, the purpose of conventions is "Conventions are a means of bringing about constitutional developments without formal changes to law." In others words, in my own interpretation, the reasons why we need conventions mainly is Parliament do not have time to pass a new law with efficiency and effectively, so, Parliament need to delegate legislation to subordinate to pass law in a circumstance that under a informal procedure. One of the importance of conventions is to prevent abuse of powers. In separation of powers, each organs shall not control over to another's powers because it will violated the separation of powers in theoretically and breaching the conventions such as Judges shall not play an active part in political life, further, members of Parliament shall not criticise the judiciary. ( Parliament could be criticized the judgements but not Judges themselves.) In purpose of making sure that legal rules run well, another importance of conventions is Parliamentary Sovereignty. The Sovereign should dissolve Parliament only on the the prime minister's request. In the event, the prime minister refuses to suggest dissolution of Parliament after losing majority support. Could the sovereign unilaterally invoke conventions? In conventions, the Queen will appoint as prime minister, the leader of the political party with the majority seats in House of Common to form the government and the government must maintain the confidence of the House of Common. The answer for lost party of the prime minister is "No" because if a "vote of confidence" on a matter central to government policy is lost, the government must resign or advise the Queen to dissolve the Parliament even the Queen likes the former prime minister. In conventions, one of the importance is to prevent the abuse of powers by the Queennamely Royal Prerogatives. In theoretical, the Queen has the legal rights to refuse to give the Royal Assent to Bills passed by the House of Common and House of Lords. However, by conventions, the Queen must give royal assent to such Bills unless this was advised to the contrary by her government. In another words, the actual of power of the Queen at the government but not at the crown. The purpose of this conventions is to prevent the happening of dictatorships.

Conventions is bound by political party. For example, it is a conventions under the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility to Parliament that all members of cabinet speak in public with a united voice and furthermore, in order to reinforce public confidence in government, in execution, the cabinet members may not disclose the contents of cabinet discussions. The doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility is essential that there is a full and frank disclosure between its members in order to that consensus appears to exist where that decisions are collectively reached. This doctrine was executed such as Mrs. Thatcher's government (1979-1989). She deviated slightly from the conventions: The increasing use was made of decision-making by a small group of cabinet members, an "inner cabinet" whose decisions were under the conventions of collective responsibility made binding on all other members, even though they had not participated in the decision-making process. For House of Lords,generally, the court have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon conventions as they are non-legal rules. The court may, however, give recognition to conventions when deciding a case but not to enforce conventions such in AG v Jonathan Cape Ltd (1976). In AG v Jonathan Cape Ltd (1976), the executors of late Richard Crossman, a former cabinet minister decided to proceed with the publication of the diaries that he had kept while in government. The diaries includes all confidential informations of the government. In this case, the court recognised the conventions but could not enforce it, where the court ruled that unless national security was involved, on 8 to 10 years embargo was the maximum period that such material would be protected in 3 circumstances must be established: (1) such publication would be in breach of conventions; and (2) that the public interest required that the publication be restrained; and (3) that there are no other facts of the public interest contradictory of and more compelling than that relied in. So, there is no breach of conventions in this case. However, in some cases such as Reference re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada (1982) and Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke (1969) was refused by the courts stated that there is a breach of conventions albeit it's important as a conventions, but it had no effect in limiting the powers of the UK Parliament. In purpose of protecting the Judges and preventing the abuse of powers by Parliament, although there is a conventions but since it is not codified. There is no power to limiting the Parliament's powers and protecting the Judges. So, Should the conventions be codified? Some reasons may say "Yes" because it may protect the Judges. However, some conventions is vague. How do we codify a vague conventions? A great example is ministerial responsibility and the working of the cabinet system. If we make a codification, it may import some disadvantages elements such as rigid in law, spent time and money with bulky amount, slow and law will be out-to-date. It was submitted that this is why the Parliament did not codify the conventions yet. In a nutshell, albeit conventions is a non-legal rules or sources but indeed, it brings much benefits rather than codification of conventions. In purpose to maintain a check and balance, the needs of conventions is necessary. So, it was submitted, conventions should not be codified and it should maintain as usual because conventions bring flexibility in law and save time and money. These benefits would brings to citizen as there is a equality and balance.